1126 replies to this topic

[Kageru Ikazuchi]

As usual, I haven't read any previous feedback, so if it's redundant, I'm sorry (not really, but you get it) ...

" ... having to try to determine an arbitrary number of players we would consider over powered in the public queue."
- I'm not convinced that with the rules coming in the Launch module that this will be the case, especially if groups of similar size are dropped against each other. A 7-man group (plus 5 solo players) against a 3-man group and 9 solo players is probably going to be a ROFLstomp, but match groups of similar size, and each team is more or less equally over powered.

"5-11 not supported" ... BOO ... "not in the trash" ... YAY ... "do not have resources" ... BOO ... "group launches, no matter what size, were always going to be a smaller subset"
- Let us try it in a reasonable way, we might surprise you. The subset might not be as small as you think.

"It would probably replace the current 12-man public queue."
- Please do not take away our ability to match 12 of our guys against random opponents, and put 12-man groups only in private matches.

"A solo player would have MUCH greater success at winning in the regular public match than up against teams."
- If those solo players are filling out groups of similar size matched against each other, so what? Wouldn't they have the same chance as anywhere else?

"... the Grouping interface cannot allow teams of 11 players, the Match Maker cannot create groups of 11 players (5+6, 4+7, 3+8, 9+2, 5+2+4, etc)."
- It might be useful to match 11-man groups only against other 11-man groups (or combinations), rather than cut that out as an option.

"The 3/3/3/3 rule still works but we cannot ask the Match Maker to match exact tonnage ..."
- 3/3/3/3 is going to be the cause of numerous "failed to find a match" popups. (Hint - solo players filling the gaps for one group per team could alleviate this.)

I am concerned.

The impression I get is that this is a "be careful what you wish for, you just might get it" kind of solution.

We say we want larger groups, you produce something that looks at first glance like it will be very difficult to find matches, driving the groups of 7, 8, or 10 who can't find a match to break into smaller groups, play private matches, or rage quit.

I also get the feeling that community warfare is going to be a huge letdown if this is the way you plan on allowing larger teams to play the game.

I might be wrong ... it might work the first time and every time, but I have a feeling that it won't. I have a feeling that the first time groups log in, join up, and start dropping, there's not going to be enough groups of the right sizes and mech mix to meet the 3/3/3/3 requirements and most groups will fail to find.

Below is my recommendation (copied from previous feedback threads).

Spoiler

At the end of this month, we should be getting three (maybe four) new match-making rules that should help make each game more fun and fair for everyone ...
- 3/3/3/3 - In my observation, right now, the biggest influence on which team wins or loses is how well a large group of Assault (and myabe Heavy) 'mechs works together. Several 'mechs with massive damage capability and the armor to survive more than a few seconds in that environment can effectively decimate a team that doesn't work together well. By forcing weight class distribution to be equal on both teams, the possibility that one team significantly outweighs (and therefore out-armors) the other is gone. (This, in my opinion, will be the biggest and most important change to game play since 12v12.)
- 'Mech-by-'Mech Tonnage Matching - I don't think this is as important as 3/3/3/3, but it should be interesting.
- Elo Buckets - In theory, this should mean that "high-Elo" players shouldn't be matched against new players. While it's still possible that a group with mixed skill and experience could end up in the "mid-Elo" bucket and roll PUGs, those should be minimal.
- One Group per Team - If the number of players grouped up at any one time in each Elo bucket is less than about 20%, then there should be no problems. Ensuring that if one team has a group, then the other one does, along with matching opposing groups by size and average Elo, is a good thing. I think this will be significant in making the matches more fun and fair for all.

Using this as a starting point, the question should be "how do we increase the group size from 2-4 to something bigger, while keeping random matches fun and fair"?

Larger groups should be allowed, but I don't think one "group queue" in addition to the public queue is the right answer ...

I do think gradually expanding the group size is possible, with the addition of the following rules:
- Opposing Groups Shall be of Similar Size - This can be variable (i.e.: a match could be exactly equal, or as wide as +/-1, 2 or 3). Trying to match groups of exactly equal size and Elo may be too difficult, but if you start allowing too much variance (i.e.: a group of 9 opposing a group of 6, for example), then it's likely that the larger group has a significantly higher chance to win the match. This is where the next rule comes in ...
- Adjust a Group's Elo Appropriately - Basically, the more people in a group, the higher their Elo should be above a straight average. This will do two things ... a large group should be matched against tougher opponents ... reduce the likelihood that a large group (regardless of Elo) ends up stomping PUGs in a lower Elo bucket.

PGI could start small ... maybe groups of up to 6, with +/-0 group size matching and no Elo adjustment ...
- if larger groups fail to find matches on a regular basis because there are no equal sized groups, then increase the variance
- if the match results show that when groups of different sizes are opposing, the larger group wins significantly more often, then start applying Elo adjustments
- gradually increse the allowed group size, until groups of 2-12 are available

At this point, the public 12-man queue becomes redundant, and some of the barriers to 12-man groups go away ... no more waiting for those last few guys ... no more trying to track down a replacement ... no more groups disintegrating when one or two guys have to go.

I know I've brought this idea up in this and other forums, but the more I think about it, the more I think it can work and work well to acheive both goals ... games should be fun and fair ... games should allow larger groups ... while breaking down the mystical "12-man" barrier and setting the stage for persistent games in Community Warfare.

Edited by Kageru Ikazuchi, 14 April 2014 - 09:08 PM.

[Roadbeer]

BLOOD WOLF, on 14 April 2014 - 08:53 PM, said:

what you dont understand, is he is backed by statistics, not only that he is seeing the Data and working as he is reading it.

What statistics could he possibly have regarding how any of the proposed systems would work if there hasn't been large group support for nearly a year and a half?

Where is he getting the data? From some hidden gameplay server where the special elite have been playing as large groups this whole time?

There are no statistics to be had except those he had in Closed beta when groups >4 were a thing.

BLOOD WOLF, on 14 April 2014 - 08:56 PM, said:

Just want to add, we take the theory or hypothesis and we test it. we test it to see if it would work. From the data recorded we can draw conclusions.

Can't test it until they build it, so neither us nor he is right or wrong until that happens, since it's nothing more than a "Might happen, but probably won't" thing, Paul's theories on the topic are no more sound than mine, or yours (if you had an independent one that didn't come from a post from Paul).

Craig Steele, on 14 April 2014 - 08:53 PM, said:

I don't see how?

In theory, anytime a 2 man group (for example) logs in they are waiting for a 6+ man group to launch.

There are more 2 man groups than 6 man.

Ergo, this system places a priority on 5 - 11 man teams at the expense of the 2 man. 2 man groups have nowhere to play in this scenerio unless a 6 man + comes along, and even then they are competing against 3 man and 4 mans for the same "filler".

All this is doing is (imo) shifting the problem to favour the needs of the 5 - 11 man group, which is according to PGI an even smaller demographic. It's not solving anything.

Why would they do that? I'd submit they wouldn't.

So how can it be made more accommodating to all without favouring the 5 - 11 demographic.

I don't even know which one you're talking about now, pick a post you want to discuss, you're all over the board again combining suggestions from different people.

I was responding to your replying about a 2-12 open queue that didn't suggest giving weight to large groups, I just commented that even in a queue where weight was given to large groups, 2 and 3 would still fill rather quickly.

[Sandpit]

BLOOD WOLF, on 14 April 2014 - 08:53 PM, said:

what you dont understand, is he is backed by statistics, not only that he is seeing the Data and working as he is reading it.

Then you would have ridden their ass about CW again being delayed and other things.

PGI and stats = bad
They've demonstrated several times that they don't do well in interpreting data, data collection, and understanding things like correlation and outliers. If you're going to use stats you MUST understand HOW they work beyond simple % Any statistician will tell you the same.

this is what I'm talking about Blood. That second line in the quote. Check post history. Show me where Road or myself have EVER acted like that. Voicing displeasure is one thing, but we have spent a LOT of time and energy defending PGI against exactly what you're stating here. We've been called white knights daily for months now. You're really going to try and convince anyone that's read the forums that we have done that? That we would have wailed and flailed had they said "Hey, CW is going to be delayed a bit longer because we're going to actually get the front end fixed for rudimentary features like lobbies
chat
social tools
and fix queues and lift the group limits?

seriously? You're really going to try and say that we would have argued against that and bashed PGI for that?
Ok dude lol

[Mycrus]

Meh.

Meh.

And meh.

I would rather have the ability to group 5-11 than have a half baked CW launched... This is what you want to hear right pgi?

Need an excuse to delay CW - You haz it.

[Sam Slade]

FupDup, on 14 April 2014 - 09:41 AM, said:

As someone who pugs for the vast majority of his games, I can say that I would try out going in the group queue and maybe even stay there (depending on how close the skill level of each team would be).

Getting away from the "steering wheel underhive" type of teammates/enemies might be refreshing (group queue players would probably on average be more experienced).

The above! It's great being in a group, even whe you're a PUG. I really stopped trying after I stopped playing in a group and I miss it; having the chance to random group would be awesome

BLOOD WOLF, on 14 April 2014 - 08:53 PM, said:

what you dont understand, is he is backed by statistics, not only that he is seeing the Data and working as he is reading it.

75% of statistics are made up on the spot, everyone knows that.

In this case the 'metrics' came from a short sample group they constructed by making event rewards available to solo drops only. These statistics also failed to indicate the volume of games per sample group... do solos play six games and uninstall as opposed to groups that play hundreds, even thousands. Head in sand technique is silly.

[Amsro]

Craig Steele, on 14 April 2014 - 08:53 PM, said:

There are more 2 man groups than 6 man.

But of course there are, because there isn't a SINGLE 6 MAN option available. So obviously no one plays it.

It would be safe to assume that 2 and 3 mans would likely be a 5 man if it was an option. The fact is you are basing your reasoning on PGI's skewed data. Paul made groups of 4+ impossible so anyone above the 4 person limit will either;

Solo
Form a seperate 2-man
Form a seperate 3-man
Form a seperate 4-man

When you increase the limit you will increase the team size average.

Edited by Amsro, 14 April 2014 - 09:19 PM.

[Lindonius]

Sandpit, on 14 April 2014 - 09:08 PM, said:

If you're going to use stats you MUST understand HOW they work beyond simple % Any statistician will tell you the same.

Edited by Lindonius, 14 April 2014 - 09:19 PM.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Roadbeer, on 14 April 2014 - 12:23 PM, said:

Yes, biased.

Given recent interactions with you, I don't feel like rehashing the topics of "launch" percentage discrepancies, impact of the group caps, and the decline group population over the last year. We've done that.

I also don't feel like pointing out to you how that entire post is dismissive and condescending.

So, at this point we're going to agree to disagree, because having a conversation with you is EXHAUSTING. You seem to think that I enjoy being mad at PGI, when the fact is, up to 2 months ago, I was one of their biggest cheerleaders.

From this quote allow me to jump back to ask the devs vlog #3 because that's where your little farce started. Ask the Devs page 15. When i responded to him with the words "Is there something your not getting". I quote myself and say he "took that as a personal attack". Also you were being very disrespectful and negative for no reason when we could have just had a discussion. Going on a few pages i called you a coward, and i still think you hide on the forums and avoid good discussion. Its like for you. I do stay objectionable tho; And foe the irrational, it is their bane.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 14 April 2014 - 09:21 PM.

[Craig Steele]

Sandpit, on 14 April 2014 - 09:02 PM, said:

so we're going to bring up stuff we've stated 3, 4, 5+ months ago?
like before they made the launch module announcement?
don't take things out of context.
groups are dwindling BECAUSE of group limits and the launch module announcement.

No, Groups are dwindling for a lot of different reasons, not just because of this. They were dwindling long before the Launch Module announcement according to Roadbeers "empirical" evidence.

Ultimately, whats your source for this statement though? PGI haven't released any data saying group players are dying off have they?

PS, if you want something more recent, see below from this thread, Roadbeer in reply to a comment about not being able to Synch Drop effectivily.

Roadbeer, on 14 April 2014 - 08:05 PM, said:

In that case, you need to switch your premades up, try different game modes, once you start getting OP4 you know you're in the right mode and it's only a matter of time before you start getting on the same team.

Just sayin

I'll also leave this here for you to, just as a refresher.

Sandpit, on 14 April 2014 - 06:33 PM, said:

no it's just another example of
"I really have no rational reason or argument against anything they've said so I'll resort to attacking them to try and distract from their ideas and maybe even get them baited into attacking me so I can either derail the thread or get them moderated"

It's a pretty common tactic used around here

If you want sympathy, show some empathy.

Roadbeer, on 14 April 2014 - 09:07 PM, said:

I don't even know which one you're talking about now, pick a post you want to discuss, you're all over the board again combining suggestions from different people.

I was responding to your replying about a 2-12 open queue that didn't suggest giving weight to large groups, I just commented that even in a queue where weight was given to large groups, 2 and 3 would still fill rather quickly.

I am quoting each quote I am discussing, it's a far from all over the place.

I am questioning how you come to the conclusion that 2 and 3's will "fill quickly" when under Bhaels system, every 2 and three is waiting for a 6+ man launch and those are a minority group. There has to be an element of "fail to launch" for that demographic on a pure volume basis.

I don't see how Bhaels system can do anything except prioritise larger groups getting their games loaded at the expense of smaller teams (2 and 3 mans) which are apparently a larger demographic.

Amsro, on 14 April 2014 - 09:17 PM, said:

But of course there are, because there isn't a SINGLE 6 MAN option available. So obviously no one plays it.

It would be safe to assume that 2 and 3 mans would likely be a 5 man if it was an option. The fact is you are basing your reasoning on PGI's skewed data. Paul made groups of 4+ impossible so anyone above the 4 person limit will either;

Solo
Form a seperate 2-man
Form a seperate 3-man
Form a seperate 4-man

When you increase the limit you will increase the team size average.

I might be basing my opinion on PGI's data sure, but they don't think its skewed and it's better than basing any amendment on no data at all, or a small demographics whims.

[BLOOD WOLF]

And roadbeer, you patronized me from the minute i made that post. So you just made yourself look stupid by calling me condescending but yet http://mwomercs.com/...3/page__st__300, start from page 15 and see how i was talking and see how he was talking.

"A fools words are still such"- that is not me being condescending, i assessed you were being foolish. Or at least displaying foolishness. By your words alone. I am no better than the next guy; However I waste no words of wisdom. I Spend time learning things for a reason, and i use knowledge gained from insight, to back my arguments and my stance. Although i am not perfect and sometimes slip i may, i can admit a defeat.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 14 April 2014 - 09:33 PM.

[Naduk]

match maker should not be making teams out of existing teams
it should only ever be 1 pre-made per team
the 2+2 vs 4 or 4+4 vs 8 has not worked in the past

after 3/3/3/3 is in place all we need is a match up of group size
all pugs vs all pugs
2 vs 2 + pugs
3 vs 3 + pugs
4 vs 4 + pugs
5 vs 5 + pugs
6 vs 6 + pugs
7 vs 7 + pugs
8 vs 8 + pugs
9 vs 9 + pugs
10 vs 10 + pugs
11 vs 11 + 1 pug each
12 vs 12 no pugs

in regards to the solo players
what needs to happen is the pre-mades need to be identified
give them an icon or a group id on the score board, but please make it only visible to the friendly team
enemy does not need to be privy to that info for free, even tho most will work it out anyway
when people know they are the one pug on a 11man ,they will likely play a little different to being 1 pug of 12 pugs

if it really stresses out the fair play banner men
give the pugs a tick box to allow groups (ie allow them selves to be used in the group que)
make it off by default

[Amsro]

Craig Steele, on 14 April 2014 - 09:22 PM, said:

I might be basing my opinion on PGI's data sure, but they don't think its skewed and it's better than basing any amendment on no data at all, or a small demographics whims.

But there Data is undeniably innacurate, they havn't release any other data to cross reference it.

When Paul himself say's he is surprised, and merely 1 year ago he was CERTAIN that more people dropped in groups. Meaning at minimum 51%-49% split. The only trend I see is that the team game has dwindled (due to 4+ being nerfed to death).

And trends are far more meaningful then self-prophesized data. This whole debacle would be the equivalent of me cutting off your foot and then being amazed that you cannot run as fast as before and on top of that don't like to walk much now either.

[Sandpit]

Craig Steele, on 14 April 2014 - 09:20 PM, said:

No, Groups are dwindling for a lot of different reasons, not just because of this. They were dwindling long before the Launch Module announcement according to Roadbeers "empirical" evidence.

Ultimately, whats your source for this statement though? PGI haven't released any data saying group players are dying off have they?

PS, if you want something more recent, see below from this thread, Roadbeer in reply to a comment about not being able to Synch Drop effectivily.



I'll also leave this here for you to, just as a refresher.



If you want sympathy, show some empathy.



I am quoting each quote I am discussing, it's a far from all over the place.

I am questioning how you come to the conclusion that 2 and 3's will "fill quickly" when under Bhaels system, every 2 and three is waiting for a 6+ man launch and those are a minority group. There has to be an element of "fail to launch" for that demographic on a pure volume basis.

I don't see how Bhaels system can do anything except prioritise larger groups getting their games loaded at the expense of smaller teams (2 and 3 mans) which are apparently a larger demographic.

really?
Ok so you completely disregarded the part about group limits. This is exactly what I'm talking about. You're cherry picking parts of a statement and then trying to spin it.
Groups are dwindling BECAUSE of the announced launch module AND GROUP LIMITS
also
NOWHERE DID I SAY THEY WERE THE SOLE CAUSE

There are a lot of factors that play into that.

Where's my data?
The launch module post
"We were shocked to learn groups used to be the majority and now they're not"
uhm....
duh?
They made it more difficult to play as a group. Did anyone think that would INCREASE group play???

There's a huge difference in making wild assertions based entirely on anecdotal evidence and making an intelligent deduction based on proven history, statistical information released by PGI, etc.

Example:
*players posts 3 screenshots of roflstomps and uses those screenshots to "prove" all games end in stomps*
(that's a true story btw, one of my favorite smh threads on the forums)

*PGI releases statistical data, players look through the hisotry of the game development, plus their personal history along with several others who experienced the same thing and makes a post showing how PGI's data is skewed and the group limits played a big part in the shift of the population*

can you see the difference there? If not.... well then I don't know what to tell you. A reasonably intelligent adult should be able to see that there's correlations there and should be able to see the difference in the two examples I just showed.

Then you have a few saying
Player A "PGI gave you what you wanted, quit whining"
Me "Uhm, no they didn't. Show me where they did that"

Player A "You're a QQer"
Me "I'd just like you to show me where they said they were implementing anything"

Player A "*digs up posts from several months ago* see? you said this!"
Me "Ok.... what does that have to do with this?"

Player B "PGI gave you what you wanted, stop QQing"
Me "Uhm... again I ask you to please show me where they've given us anything"

(I'm still waiting for someone to show me where PGI gave us anything let alone the ability to group up past 4mans in Paul's post btw)

[Novakaine]

Craig Steele, on 14 April 2014 - 09:22 PM, said:

No, Groups are dwindling for a lot of different reasons, not just because of this. They were dwindling long before the Launch Module announcement according to Roadbeers "empirical" evidence.

Ultimately, whats your source for this statement though? PGI haven't released any data saying group players are dying off have they?

PS, if you want something more recent, see below from this thread, Roadbeer in reply to a comment about not being able to Synch Drop effectivily.



I'll also leave this here for you to, just as a refresher.



If you want sympathy, show some empathy.



I am quoting each quote I am discussing, it's a far from all over the place.

I am questioning how you come to the conclusion that 2 and 3's will "fill quickly" when under Bhaels system, every 2 and three is waiting for a 6+ man launch and those are a minority group. There has to be an element of "fail to launch" for that demographic on a pure volume basis.

I don't see how Bhaels system can do anything except prioritise larger groups getting their games loaded at the expense of smaller teams (2 and 3 mans) which are apparently a larger demographic.



I might be basing my opinion on PGI's data sure, but they don't think its skewed and it's better than basing any amendment on no data at all, or a small demographics whims.

PGI and data in the same sentence is a sad joke.
Groups are dwindling because of PGI overwhelmingly and wholeheartedly made it to difficult to play with.
A 3year old can figure this out.
1. Two years ago over a 90 odd people in my group all playing MWO
2. Today maybe 6 at any given time playing MWO.
3. Roughly the same amount of members
4. The rest are playing other games right now.
5. PGI seems surprise that 84% of people drop solo.
Why?
Because PGI killed the ability to play with more than a handful of your friends.
Thats enough evidence for me.

[Sandpit]

BLOOD WOLF, on 14 April 2014 - 09:26 PM, said:

And roadbeer, you patronized me from the minute i made that post. So you just made yourself look stupid by calling me condescending but yet http://mwomercs.com/...3/page__st__300, start from page 15 and see how i was talking and see how he was talking.

"A fools words are still such"- that is not me being condescending, i assessed you were being foolish. Or at least displaying foolishness. By your words alone.

Should I got through your post history and pull up something from 3+ weeks ago in a completely different thread and topic or would you rather just stay on topic here?

[Craig Steele]

Amsro, on 14 April 2014 - 09:31 PM, said:

But there Data is undeniably innacurate, they havn't release any other data to cross reference it.

When Paul himself say's he is surprised, and merely 1 year ago he was CERTAIN that more people dropped in groups. Meaning at minimum 51%-49% split. The only trend I see is that the team game has dwindled (due to 4+ being nerfed to death).

And trends are far more meaningful then self-prophesized data. This whole debacle would be the equivalent of me cutting off your foot and then being amazed that you cannot run as fast as before and on top of that don't like to walk much now either.

How is it indeniably inaccurate? Because forum warriors have seized on some words and questioned the context and on the basis of no clarity from PGI, PGI are wrong?

It's far more likely that this multi million dollar enterprise has sought external data interpretation and yeah, maybe they did get in wrong early on, or maybe post launch the volumes just changed with the growth of players.

The bottom line either way, it's still the data they are basing their view on and we are arguing the data is "wrong" with no substance.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Sandpit, on 14 April 2014 - 09:33 PM, said:

Should I got through your post history and pull up something from 3+ weeks ago in a completely different thread and topic or would you rather just stay on topic here?

please do, and of course we can always stay on topic.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 14 April 2014 - 09:38 PM.

[Craig Steele]

Sandpit, on 14 April 2014 - 09:31 PM, said:

really?
Ok so you completely disregarded the part about group limits. This is exactly what I'm talking about. You're cherry picking parts of a statement and then trying to spin it.
Groups are dwindling BECAUSE of the announced launch module AND GROUP LIMITS
also
NOWHERE DID I SAY THEY WERE THE SOLE CAUSE (1)

There are a lot of factors that play into that.

Where's my data?
The launch module post
"We were shocked to learn groups used to be the majority and now they're not" (2)
uhm....
duh?
They made it more difficult to play as a group. Did anyone think that would INCREASE group play???

There's a huge difference in making wild assertions based entirely on anecdotal evidence and making an intelligent deduction based on proven history, statistical information released by PGI, etc.

(1) NOWHERE DID YOU SAY THERE WERE OTHER CAUSES either.

(2) Which also includes the growth in players subsequent to the "launch" and their very different in game behaviour to founders, being that they will have a higher proportion of "farming" drops for C-Bills and as solo players, will load a new game before the current game ends multiplying the effect of this behaviour on statistics)

It's also a huge difference to making deductions on a small sliver of possibile inputs and disregarding other factors that may be an impact on the statistics you're trying to analyse.

[Amsro]

Craig Steele, on 14 April 2014 - 09:36 PM, said:

How is it indeniably inaccurate? Because forum warriors have seized on some words and questioned the context and on the basis of no clarity from PGI, PGI are wrong?

It's far more likely that this multi million dollar enterprise has sought external data interpretation and yeah, maybe they did get in wrong early on, or maybe post launch the volumes just changed with the growth of players.

The bottom line either way, it's still the data they are basing their view on and we are arguing the data is "wrong" with no substance.

But PGI isn't a "Multi-Million Dollar" Enterprise. Are you being serious?

The substance is in the ability to think for yourself and truly analyze the entire thing. I havn't based my view on " Forum Warrior " word siezing. Is that even a thing?

Substance (The rest of my post, which you forgot to read? )

Quote

When Paul himself say's he is surprised, and merely 1 year ago he was CERTAIN that more people dropped in groups. Meaning at minimum 51%-49% split. The only trend I see is that the team game has dwindled (due to 4+ being nerfed to death).

I mean it comes directly from Paul, how much more substance do you need to start to think critically about the restrictions that are being implimented to due mismanagment.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Amsro, on 14 April 2014 - 09:45 PM, said:

But PGI isn't a "Multi-Million Dollar" Enterprise. Are you being serious?

The substance is in the ability to think for yourself and truly analyze the entire thing. I havn't based my view on " Forum Warrior " word siezing. Is that even a thing?

Substance (The rest of my post, which you forgot to read? )


I mean it comes directly from Paul, how much more substance do you need to start to think critically about the restrictions that are being implimented to due mismanagment.

mismanagement? throwing words without elaboration hurts. I know this has been touched on before but a summary is the best way to go.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 14 April 2014 - 09:50 PM.